INDIA PROGRESSES DEVELOPMENT of ADVANCED SPACE TECHNOLOGY Gp Capt Vivek Kapur Senior Fellow, CAPS
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CAPS In Focus 30 May 2016 www.capsindia.org 64/16 INDIA PROGRESSES DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED SPACE TECHNOLOGY Gp Capt Vivek Kapur Senior Fellow, CAPS Introduction ISRO has worked on developing its Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) India’s space agency, Indian Space Research in increasingly more powerful variants from Organisation (ISRO), commenced working on GSLV to GSLV-Mk-3. Conventional launch rockets developing a space launch capability in the late are one use expendable vehicles. One use rocket 1970s. Success with its satellite Launch Vehicle carries its payload to a designated point in space (SLV)-3 was first achieved in 19801. SLV-3 was at a predetermined velocity. Most space launch capable of placing a small 40 kg payload into low rockets are multistage vehicles. As each stage is earth orbit (LEO)2. Hence SLV-3 was not a really used up (its fuel is fully burnt) it is jettisoned to usable space launch capability as most satellites avoid carrying non-productive dead weight any of the time weighed above several hundred further than absolutely necessary. Thus, entire kilograms and orbits such as polar orbits and launch rocket is progressively discarded after its geosynchronous (GSO), geostationary transfer use. The jettisoned stages of the rocket burn up orbits (GTO), and Geosynchronous equatorial in the atmosphere; with surviving structures orbits (GEO) were entirely beyond SLV-3’s being destroyed on impact with the ground or capability. ISRO then put effort into developing falling into oceans, depending upon the location more powerful launch vehicles such as the Polar of the launch site. Each space launch has Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)3 and Augmented traditionally required a complete freshly built Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV)4. Both ASLV and rocket to be used. This makes the cost of placing PSLV proved to be quite capable. However, each kilogram of payload into space very high. success was achieved after a few failed launch Considerable thought has been devoted by all attempts of these more powerful launch rockets. space faring nations to devise means of reducing The first PSLV was launched in year 1993 and launch costs.’ achieved success a year later5. In recent years, 1 Centre for Air Power Studies | @CAPS_India | Centre for Air Power Studies CAPS In Focus 30 May 2016 www.capsindia.org Reduction of Launch Costs engines; these three integral engines were in continuous operation till the Space Shuttle Even a cursory look at the means of reducing the reached orbit in outer space, hence the need for a cost of launching objects into space easily large amount of fuel8. The two strap-on solid identifies the ‘one time use’ nature of the space booster rockets were jettisoned after use and launch rocket as a major contributor to the high returned to splash down in the ocean with cost of launching objects into space. parachutes slowing down the impact speed. The Development of a launch vehicle that could be solid fuelled booster rockets were meant to be reused appeared to be the logical step towards recovered from the sea and refurbished for reducing the cost of space launches. There are reuse.9 The entire Space Shuttle returned to many possible ways of reusing launch vehicles. Earth through a glide landing and was reusable.10 The first such attempt at developing a The huge external fuel tank was, however, reusable launch system was development of the discarded after use. Some national security Space Shuttle by the US. The Space Shuttle requirements were also included in the Space involved development of a large winged vehicle Shuttle design to meet needs of the US military11. that could carry reasonable payload and crew to Despite only the external fuel tank being totally orbit and return via a glide to land like a expendable the US Space Shuttle did not meet its conventional aircraft.6 This vehicle was provided objective of making space launches less costly. with its own integral rocket engines. The aim of The development and operating costs of the the program was to make available cheap, American Space Shuttle were still quite high. The regular and fast access to space7. For launch from cost of launching a kilogram of payload to space Earth the US Space Shuttle used its three integral into low earth orbit (LEO), at an altitude of about rocket engines along with two strap-on solid fuel 330 to 430 kilometers above mean sea level booster rockets. The vehicle was launched (AMSL) where the International Space Station vertically like a space rocket. The largest (ISS) orbits the earth using various space launch structure attached to the American Space Shuttle methods available to the US were reported as at launch was a huge external fuel tank that listed at Table 1. carried fuel for the shuttle’s three integral rocket 2 Centre for Air Power Studies | @CAPS_India | Centre for Air Power Studies CAPS In Focus 30 May 2016 www.capsindia.org Table1: Cost of Launching a Kilogram to Space for USA US Civil Contractors such as Space X (with Falcon Type of space Russian Progress rockets) and now also Blue Space Shuttle launch vehicle Spacecraft Origin (with the Shepard rocket). These are still in development phases. $ cost per kilogram of payload carried to 46,789.6 39,927.8 58,894 the ISS in LEO Source: Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, “NASA’s Commercial Cargo Providers; Are They Ready to Supply the Space Station in the Post-Shuttle Era?”. The US built five Space Shuttles, these were launchers use tried and tested conventional named Columbia, Challenger, Endeavour, rocket technology of the type used in the 1950s Discovery, and Atlantis12. Construction of these to launch satellites and other payloads by the craft involved utilisation of high technology erstwhile Soviet Union. The development costs of ceramic tiles for thermal protection at re-entry these venerable rockets have been amortised into the atmosphere, provision of human fully and their manufacturing has been made habitation space with life support equipment and very efficient and reliable. There has been a high end robotics on board to simplify in space thread of opinion in various circles that the path mission tasks13. towards lower cost access to space lies not in developing reusable launch vehicles but in Table 1 brings out that the advanced features building robust, well understood, tried and incorporated in the US Space Shuttle and other tested rockets that can be mass manufactured overheads involved through the ‘cutting edge cheaply. While there is merit in this argument, high technology’ nature of the US industrial especially if one goes by the data placed at Table complex made US Space Shuttle very expensive 1 above, simple rockets do not offer the flexibility as a launch system in terms of per payload of a reusable launch platform. The erstwhile kilogram (kg) to space terms. The cheapest Soviet space program was working on launch as per the table above is provided by the developing the Buran, their version of a Space Russian Progress space craft. These Russian Shuttle when the Soviet Union was dismantled 3 Centre for Air Power Studies | @CAPS_India | Centre for Air Power Studies CAPS In Focus 30 May 2016 www.capsindia.org and a funds crunch forced the project to be kilometers) AMSL, which altitude falls in outer abandoned14. China is known to be developing its space or above the Karman line.21 Need to reach own recoverable space plane development craft such altitudes dictate a taller and more slender called the “Yuanzheng-1” or Project 921-315 . design. Blue Origin, on the other hand, rises to about 62 miles (about 99 kilometers) AMSL, Another Path to Launch Cost Reduction which is just about till the Karman line. This Meanwhile, there are two private companies in allows for a more compact and robust design the US - Space X16, founded by the entrepreneur overall. Falcon also requires, due to the altitude it Elon Musk of Tesla and Hyperloop fame17, and rises to, moving away from the absolute vertical Blue Origin, founded by Jeff Bezos of (with respect to the Earth’s surface) as it climbs Amazon.com fame - that are working on an higher, making vertical landing orientation and alternate path towards reducing space launch stabilisation of its recovered stages more costs. Both these private companies are trying to complex to control. The Blue Origin remains make conventional space rockets reusable to vertical throughout its flight, thus somewhat reduce costs. Space X is trying to make at least reducing the sensing and control needs for a some stages of its Falcon rockets reusable by successful landing. Blue Origin aims to make an ‘soft-landing’ the first stage of its Falcon rockets entire near space altitude capable rocket on a floating platform at sea18. Space X has also reusable while Falcon aims to reuse at least the made its rocket as simple as possible by using a first stage of a rocket able to take payloads to single type of engine for all stages, similar outer space. All these differences between the materials and designs for all stages, etc. thus Falcon and New Shepard rockets apart, both reducing design and manufacturing costs while systems have the soft landing and reuse of rocket also reducing complexity and increasing stages in common unlike the Space Shuttle that reliability`.19 Two such soft landings of the Falcon landed a winged orbiter. Through the process of first stage have been successfully achieved at sea overall simplification followed by Space X, it is in addition to several successful landings on land likely that the combination of simplification of as on date.20 These hold out hope for appreciable design and manufacture, and reusability of launch cost reductions in future.